WJ Reducing Flights Due To War

[pelmet]

1% in April and 3% in May(1000 flights). Hopefully will bounce back soon.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/calgary/article/ ... ettles-in/

[flieslikeachicken]

What a bullshit headline.

we have adjusted our flying to align with demand

WestJet does not fly to, near, or through the middle east and is not directly affected by it. They're affected by our poor leadership and high taxes.

[AA123456]

Cooked. Both WJ and AC alike have snubbed decades fuel hedging programs for over a decade. There's a price to pay.. and we are all about to bear witness to the fastest/swiftest pilot career killer ever seen in generations. Fuel will literally 2x by July. To those who think I'm joking, you don't understand the core fundamentals of the business. Enjoy the ride.

[cdnavater]

What a bullshit headline.

we have adjusted our flying to align with demand

WestJet does not fly to, near, or through the middle east and is not directly affected by it. They're affected by our poor leadership and high taxes.

I don’t see anything wrong with the headline, the impact of the war is being felt literally everywhere, Australia was a couple weeks away from being out of jet fuel and there is a major shortage of diesel. Paying about 3.00 per litre for diesel.
The impact of the war will spread farther the longer it goes on, demand is falling and adjustments are made, they won’t keep staff on doing nothing for very long, lessons from Covid are not really relevant.
The economy won’t bounce back nearly as fast this time, of course I’m not an economist, so take it with a grain of salt but that’s how I see it going.

[Airbrake]

Cooked. Both WJ and AC alike have snubbed decades fuel hedging programs for over a decade. There's a price to pay.. and we are all about to bear witness to the fastest/swiftest pilot career killer ever seen in generations. Fuel will literally 2x by July. To those who think I'm joking, you don't understand the core fundamentals of the business. Enjoy the ride.

WestJet has had up to 25% hedged according to our CFO. I am not sure of price or amount but they are using it more than the WJ of old did.

[boeingboy]

What a bullshit headline.

we have adjusted our flying to align with demand

WestJet does not fly to, near, or through the middle east and is not directly affected by it. They're affected by our poor leadership and high taxes.

Typical MAGA education there....

[BigQ]

What does MAGA, an American phenomenon, have to do with Canadian aviation?

[philaviate]

What does MAGA, an American phenomenon, have to do with Canadian aviation?

Nothing.
But half of Canadians have been programmed to blame all their woes on the bogey man of orange man bad to hide the reality that their beloved Canadian government, of all colours ,has spent decades ruining what should be the best and most affluent country on earth.
It's the modern religion for the left. Worship the government, their symbolism and dogma, and scorn their perceived devil. Their glorious leaders can do no wrong, and they will willingly sacrifice themselves and future generations on their altar of the ideology.

[ChunderBay]

What does MAGA, an American phenomenon, have to do with Canadian aviation?

Nothing.
But half of Canadians have been programmed to blame all their woes on the bogey man of orange man bad to hide the reality that their beloved Canadian government, of all colours ,has spent decades ruining what should be the best and most affluent country on earth.
It's the modern religion for the left. Worship the government, their symbolism and dogma, and scorn their perceived devil. Their glorious leaders can do no wrong, and they will willingly sacrifice themselves and future generations on their altar of the ideology.

Indeed


I have more respect for those dumbass satanic people or Flying Spaghetti Monster types than I do for those so worship government.

Hey isn’t there some oil in Canada?

[pelmet]

What does MAGA, an American phenomenon, have to do with Canadian aviation?

Nothing.
But half of Canadians have been programmed to blame all their woes on the bogey man of orange man bad to hide the reality that their beloved Canadian government, of all colours ,has spent decades ruining what should be the best and most affluent country on earth.
It's the modern religion for the left. Worship the government, their symbolism and dogma, and scorn their perceived devil. Their glorious leaders can do no wrong, and they will willingly sacrifice themselves and future generations on their altar of the ideology.

Might be more than half.

There is usually an ulterior, unspoken motive for their votes and it frequently comes down to money or how they perceive they will monetarily benefit.

One need only look at the comments on WJ and AC forums in the run-up to strikes. Do they care that hundreds of thousands will have plans ruined? No.

Do they care that the economy will take a hit affecting jobs? No.

Do the port workers or train workers care that thousands could lose their jobs if they go on extended strike? No.

Do they reject binding arbitration(which tries to be fair to both sides) out of hand because it would impede their ability to ruin livelihoods of large numbers of Canadians on the road to some extra income? Yes.

Do they vote liberal or NDP because it is felt at the time that they will be more favourable to union action? Yes.

Are they surprised when they still get ordered back to work anyways by the party they voted for? Yes.

[Mach1]

Might be more than half.

There is usually an ulterior, unspoken motive for their votes and it frequently comes down to money or how they perceive they will monetarily benefit.

One need only look at the comments on WJ and AC forums in the run-up to strikes. Do they care that hundreds of thousands will have plans ruined? No.

Do they care that the economy will take a hit affecting jobs? No.

Do the port workers or train workers care that thousands could lose their jobs if they go on extended strike? No.

Do they reject binding arbitration(which tries to be fair to both sides) out of hand because it would impede their ability to ruin livelihoods of large numbers of Canadians on the road to some extra income? Yes.

Do they vote liberal or NDP because it is felt at the time that they will be more favourable to union action? Yes.

Are they surprised when they still get ordered back to work anyways by the party they voted for? Yes.

There's so much wrong in here I'm not sure where to begin.

Unions are part of the economy. They have one weapon and only one weapon when negotiating wages and working conditions, and that weapon is the withdrawal of their services. Why should it fall on my shoulders to care about your inconvenience? Shouldn't you place that blame upon the company that decided to bargain in bad faith to the point that the only recourse left was to stop working and stop being paid in order to improve my wages and working conditions AND in doing so raise the bar for all working class people in the industry? Why are you mad that people are getting more of the profit the companies make?

If you believe in capitalism, then you believe in a market economy. If you believe in a market economy then you should support unions and strikes. The market won't bear to pay more than it can, and the workers shouldn't work for less than a fair share of the profit from their work. It's a negotiated settlement and that's capitalism at it's finest.

Arbitrators are fair? If you thought you just heard a derisive laugh echoing across the land, then you were correct. Arbitrators always settle on the side of the company. The government is bought and paid for through corporations and nowhere more so than Canada. That's why there are so many oligopolies here and so little competition. The "being Canadian tax" is brought to you by your own government and businesses. To Arbitrate is to admit you would not negotiate.

The parts I agree with:

The people who live on the government dole know where their money is coming from and vote Liberal and NDP because they are terrified they might have to work an actual job in a private sector that has been repressed by the governments they keep voting into power.

No one should be ordered back to work (the exception being actual necessary services where people will die without that service... IE: Police, Ambulance, Fire fighting, Hospital). No one is dying because they didn't get to go to Mexico on vacation.

[5degrees]

What does MAGA, an American phenomenon, have to do with Canadian aviation?

Nothing.
But half of Canadians have been programmed to blame all their woes on the bogey man of orange man bad to hide the reality that their beloved Canadian government, of all colours ,has spent decades ruining what should be the best and most affluent country on earth.
It's the modern religion for the left. Worship the government, their symbolism and dogma, and scorn their perceived devil. Their glorious leaders can do no wrong, and they will willingly sacrifice themselves and future generations on their altar of the ideology.

Might be more than half.

There is usually an ulterior, unspoken motive for their votes and it frequently comes down to money or how they perceive they will monetarily benefit.

One need only look at the comments on WJ and AC forums in the run-up to strikes. Do they care that hundreds of thousands will have plans ruined? No.

Do they care that the economy will take a hit affecting jobs? No.

Do the port workers or train workers care that thousands could lose their jobs if they go on extended strike? No.

Do they reject binding arbitration(which tries to be fair to both sides) out of hand because it would impede their ability to ruin livelihoods of large numbers of Canadians on the road to some extra income? Yes.

Do they vote liberal or NDP because it is felt at the time that they will be more favourable to union action? Yes.

Are they surprised when they still get ordered back to work anyways by the party they voted for? Yes.

Holy hell, that's one of the more insane conservative twitter brain takes I've seen in a while. Only people on the left famously care about their money...

[pelmet]

Nothing.
But half of Canadians have been programmed to blame all their woes on the bogey man of orange man bad to hide the reality that their beloved Canadian government, of all colours ,has spent decades ruining what should be the best and most affluent country on earth.
It's the modern religion for the left. Worship the government, their symbolism and dogma, and scorn their perceived devil. Their glorious leaders can do no wrong, and they will willingly sacrifice themselves and future generations on their altar of the ideology.

Might be more than half.

There is usually an ulterior, unspoken motive for their votes and it frequently comes down to money or how they perceive they will monetarily benefit.

One need only look at the comments on WJ and AC forums in the run-up to strikes. Do they care that hundreds of thousands will have plans ruined? No.

Do they care that the economy will take a hit affecting jobs? No.

Do the port workers or train workers care that thousands could lose their jobs if they go on extended strike? No.

Do they reject binding arbitration(which tries to be fair to both sides) out of hand because it would impede their ability to ruin livelihoods of large numbers of Canadians on the road to some extra income? Yes.

Do they vote liberal or NDP because it is felt at the time that they will be more favourable to union action? Yes.

Are they surprised when they still get ordered back to work anyways by the party they voted for? Yes.

Holy hell, that's one of the more insane conservative twitter brain takes I've seen in a while. Only people on the left famously care about their money...

Well.....

Lets put some of my statements to the test.

1. I said: "One need only look at the comments on WJ and AC forums in the run-up to strikes. Do they care that hundreds of thousands will have plans ruined? No.

Within a few minutes I got a reply from Mach 1 stating:

Why should it fall on my shoulders to care about your inconvenience?

No one is dying because they didn't get to go to Mexico on vacation.

2. I said: "Do they care that the economy will take a hit affecting jobs? No."

An AI search found the following when I entered "How will Air Canada strike affect economy?"

Tourism and Travel Decline: The Skies Mag notes that cancellations (e.g., 3,200 in August 2025) hurt hotels, restaurants, and tourism, especially during peak travel times.
Supply Chain Disruptions: Beyond passengers, Air Canada transports air cargo. A shutdown impacts small businesses relying on timely deliveries, as highlighted by Financial Post.


3. I said "Do they vote liberal or NDP because it is felt at the time that they will be more favourable to union action? Yes.

Are they surprised when they still get ordered back to work anyways by the party they voted for? Yes."

There were plenty of posters on the AC forum denigrating the conservatives for years because they were forced back to work(i believe the name was Lisa Raitt). They went on and on about her. So why not vote for the liberals multiple times and all their destructive policies that have accompanied those votes. And guess what.....the liberals quashed their strike too. So their destructive policy vote(gosh hospital waits are long and crime is so much higher these days) got them nothing in return in terms of strike capability.

4. I said: "Do the port workers or train workers care that thousands could lose their jobs if they go on extended strike? No."

AI gave the following for a rail strike(didn't bother to look up port workers):

"A Canadian rail strike (CN and CPKC) would paralyze the economy, costing approximately $341 million per day due to halted shipments of roughly 50% of Canada's exports. A strike shuts down critical supply chains, hitting agriculture, mining, and manufacturing, leading to potential inventory shortages, lost contracts, and higher consumer prices for goods like food.
Key Impacts of a Rail Strike on Canada's Economy:
Massive Trade Disruption: With $380 billion of goods traveling by rail annually (roughly $1 billion per day), a strike halts major trade corridors, affecting both imports and exports, especially in mining, agriculture, and forestry.
Daily Economic Losses: Moody's estimated that a full stoppage at both CN and CPKC could cost the economy $341 million per day.
Sector-Specific Consequences:
Agriculture: During harvest, a strike can halt the movement of up to 90% of grain, causing severe bottlenecks and over $50 million in daily losses to farmers.
Manufacturing: 66% of manufacturers reported in 2024 that a strike would have dire consequences for their operations, with significant stoppages likely in the automotive sector.
Resource Industry: Mining and energy sectors would see massive delays in moving goods like potash and coal, say.
Supply Chain & Retail Impact: Shortages of consumer goods and food products, such as meat, frozen foods (like french fries), and produce, would likely appear.
Long-Term Impact: Every week of a strike would take several weeks to clear the backlog, causing lasting damage to Canada’s reputation as a stable, reliable trading partner.
Unemployment: A protracted strike could lead to widespread layoffs, with estimates suggesting a four-week stoppage could result in 49,000 job losses.
Limited Alternatives: Trucking is unable to fill the gap, as a single 100-car train holds the equivalent of 400 trucks, and in any case, the trucking industry does not have the capacity to handle the massive shift.
As described by Senator Lewis and analyzed in and, these disruptions go far beyond the immediate labour dispute, impacting almost every sector of the Canadian economy.

[pelmet]

Meanwhile....Mach1 stated with regard to binding arbitration:

Arbitrators are fair? If you thought you just heard a derisive laugh echoing across the land, then you were correct. Arbitrators always settle on the side of the company.

Of course.....no evidence is provided(almost certainly because he has none). So I thought I would do some searching to find out. Perhaps with a something related to a Canadian airline strike. I found this with regard to a previous Air Canada dispute:


https://globalnews.ca/news/222720/union ... n-experts/

'Global News asked two labour experts about the situation – particularly who wins and who loses when parties face each before an arbitrator. They say that in most cases, the employer has more to lose.

“If government thinks they are going to save money by interfering in collective bargaining and sending it all off to arbitration, then they are sadly mistaken because the evidence shows quite the contrary,” says Glenn Wheeler, a staff lawyer for COPE, a union representing office and professional employees. None of his members work at Air Canada.

Wheeler said arbitrators often look at previous collective bargaining processes and try to duplicate their wage increases, and often they actually award higher increases than would have been reached during bargaining.

“Once things are taken out of the hands of the employer, then things result that employers would not have wanted, not only to do with wages, but very often with non-monetary parts with collective agreements,” he said.

As a senior vice-president with CBC and later at CP Rail, George Smith has extensive experience representing employers during labour relations and collective bargaining processes.

Smith, now at Queen’s University School of Policy Studies, said union members can turn down settlements negotiated at the bargaining table in the hopes of doing better during binding arbitration.

“In this climate, when unions aren’t the aggressor at the bargaining table, often management are, binding arbitration more often reflects the employees’ desire or the union’s desire than the company’s,” he said.'

Sorry folks...the usual kind of people are doing the usual misleading again. And then the best they come up with is statements like "insane conservative twitter brain takes' as a response instead of actual evidence. Of course, there could be different opinions out there(and I would welcome such a response if credible), but none of the responses bothered going that route. Anyone wonder why?

Meanwhile, binding arbitration(and remember.....both sides have to agree to the arbitrator) can prevent a strike and its loss of money for strikers and much more importantly, the people affected by it. You may get more than management would have given through negotiations.

[pelmet]

All the above being said......it is a bit off topic and hopefully, WJ will be getting back to normal soon and even expanding.

[5degrees]

Meanwhile....Mach1 stated with regard to binding arbitration:

Arbitrators are fair? If you thought you just heard a derisive laugh echoing across the land, then you were correct. Arbitrators always settle on the side of the company.

Of course.....no evidence is provided(almost certainly because he has none). So I thought I would do some searching to find out. Perhaps with a something related to a Canadian airline strike. I found this with regard to a previous Air Canada dispute:


https://globalnews.ca/news/222720/union ... n-experts/

'Global News asked two labour experts about the situation – particularly who wins and who loses when parties face each before an arbitrator. They say that in most cases, the employer has more to lose.

“If government thinks they are going to save money by interfering in collective bargaining and sending it all off to arbitration, then they are sadly mistaken because the evidence shows quite the contrary,” says Glenn Wheeler, a staff lawyer for COPE, a union representing office and professional employees. None of his members work at Air Canada.

Wheeler said arbitrators often look at previous collective bargaining processes and try to duplicate their wage increases, and often they actually award higher increases than would have been reached during bargaining.

“Once things are taken out of the hands of the employer, then things result that employers would not have wanted, not only to do with wages, but very often with non-monetary parts with collective agreements,” he said.

As a senior vice-president with CBC and later at CP Rail, George Smith has extensive experience representing employers during labour relations and collective bargaining processes.

Smith, now at Queen’s University School of Policy Studies, said union members can turn down settlements negotiated at the bargaining table in the hopes of doing better during binding arbitration.

“In this climate, when unions aren’t the aggressor at the bargaining table, often management are, binding arbitration more often reflects the employees’ desire or the union’s desire than the company’s,” he said.'

Sorry folks...the usual kind of people are doing the usual misleading again. And then the best they come up with is statements like "insane conservative twitter brain takes' as a response instead of actual evidence. Of course, there could be different opinions out there(and I would welcome such a response if credible), but none of the responses bothered going that route. Anyone wonder why?

Meanwhile, binding arbitration(and remember.....both sides have to agree to the arbitrator) can prevent a strike and its loss of money for strikers and much more importantly, the people affected by it. You may get more than management would have given through negotiations.

Cherry picking quotes from famously non con leaning financial times and former rail baron execs to make his point that only the libs want to get paid. Sorry folks it's the best Pelmet can do to provide fair and nuanced reporting.

[pelmet]

Meanwhile....Mach1 stated with regard to binding arbitration:

Arbitrators are fair? If you thought you just heard a derisive laugh echoing across the land, then you were correct. Arbitrators always settle on the side of the company.

Of course.....no evidence is provided(almost certainly because he has none). So I thought I would do some searching to find out. Perhaps with a something related to a Canadian airline strike. I found this with regard to a previous Air Canada dispute:


https://globalnews.ca/news/222720/unions-usually-win-during-labour-arbitration-experts/

'Global News asked two labour experts about the situation – particularly who wins and who loses when parties face each before an arbitrator. They say that in most cases, the employer has more to lose.

“If government thinks they are going to save money by interfering in collective bargaining and sending it all off to arbitration, then they are sadly mistaken because the evidence shows quite the contrary,” says Glenn Wheeler, a staff lawyer for COPE, a union representing office and professional employees. None of his members work at Air Canada.

Wheeler said arbitrators often look at previous collective bargaining processes and try to duplicate their wage increases, and often they actually award higher increases than would have been reached during bargaining.

“Once things are taken out of the hands of the employer, then things result that employers would not have wanted, not only to do with wages, but very often with non-monetary parts with collective agreements,” he said.

As a senior vice-president with CBC and later at CP Rail, George Smith has extensive experience representing employers during labour relations and collective bargaining processes.

Smith, now at Queen’s University School of Policy Studies, said union members can turn down settlements negotiated at the bargaining table in the hopes of doing better during binding arbitration.

“In this climate, when unions aren’t the aggressor at the bargaining table, often management are, binding arbitration more often reflects the employees’ desire or the union’s desire than the company’s,” he said.'

Sorry folks...the usual kind of people are doing the usual misleading again. And then the best they come up with is statements like "insane conservative twitter brain takes' as a response instead of actual evidence. Of course, there could be different opinions out there(and I would welcome such a response if credible), but none of the responses bothered going that route. Anyone wonder why?

Meanwhile, binding arbitration(and remember.....both sides have to agree to the arbitrator) can prevent a strike and its loss of money for strikers and much more importantly, the people affected by it. You may get more than management would have given through negotiations.

Cherry picking quotes from famously non con leaning financial times and former rail baron execs to make his point that only the libs want to get paid. Sorry folks it's the best Pelmet can do to provide fair and nuanced reporting.

You will notice once again folks….no attempt to actually back up their overall argument with any actual data......perhaps a study or quote from another person with experience in that area….just the usual conclusions based on……nothing.ie…..no intelligent argument.

With regard to the statement about cherry-picking quotes and fair reporting in the article I referenced....….(a) I took the ENTIRE quote from the people quoted in the article.

(b) 5degrees states that it is unfair reporting because a former CBC exec and CP Rail exec was quoted. Yet the first supposed expert that the reporter talked to was a lawyer for a union. That means that the reporter talked to people with experience in the field from both sides of the bargaining table for their opinions, meaning they were very much trying to be fair. It would appear that 5 degrees either fails to comprehend that or more likely, based on his response, that5 he is the one that is unfair and biased.....and that you are being intentionally misled, again.

Good thing you have Pelmet to set things straight .

I am ready to return to the subject of the thread.

[cdnavater]

Meanwhile....Mach1 stated with regard to binding arbitration:



Of course.....no evidence is provided(almost certainly because he has none). So I thought I would do some searching to find out. Perhaps with a something related to a Canadian airline strike. I found this with regard to a previous Air Canada dispute:


https://globalnews.ca/news/222720/union ... n-experts/

'Global News asked two labour experts about the situation – particularly who wins and who loses when parties face each before an arbitrator. They say that in most cases, the employer has more to lose.

“If government thinks they are going to save money by interfering in collective bargaining and sending it all off to arbitration, then they are sadly mistaken because the evidence shows quite the contrary,” says Glenn Wheeler, a staff lawyer for COPE, a union representing office and professional employees. None of his members work at Air Canada.

Wheeler said arbitrators often look at previous collective bargaining processes and try to duplicate their wage increases, and often they actually award higher increases than would have been reached during bargaining.

“Once things are taken out of the hands of the employer, then things result that employers would not have wanted, not only to do with wages, but very often with non-monetary parts with collective agreements,” he said.

As a senior vice-president with CBC and later at CP Rail, George Smith has extensive experience representing employers during labour relations and collective bargaining processes.

Smith, now at Queen’s University School of Policy Studies, said union members can turn down settlements negotiated at the bargaining table in the hopes of doing better during binding arbitration.

“In this climate, when unions aren’t the aggressor at the bargaining table, often management are, binding arbitration more often reflects the employees’ desire or the union’s desire than the company’s,” he said.'

Sorry folks...the usual kind of people are doing the usual misleading again. And then the best they come up with is statements like "insane conservative twitter brain takes' as a response instead of actual evidence. Of course, there could be different opinions out there(and I would welcome such a response if credible), but none of the responses bothered going that route. Anyone wonder why?

Meanwhile, binding arbitration(and remember.....both sides have to agree to the arbitrator) can prevent a strike and its loss of money for strikers and much more importantly, the people affected by it. You may get more than management would have given through negotiations.

Cherry picking quotes from famously non con leaning financial times and former rail baron execs to make his point that only the libs want to get paid. Sorry folks it's the best Pelmet can do to provide fair and nuanced reporting.

You will notice once again folks….no attempt to actually back up their overall argument with any actual data......perhaps a study or quote from another person with experience in that area….just the usual conclusions based on……nothing.ie…..no intelligent argument.

With regard to the statement about cherry-picking quotes and fair reporting in the article I referenced....….(a) I took the ENTIRE quote from the people quoted in the article.

(b) 5degrees states that it is unfair reporting because a former CBC exec and CP Rail exec was quoted. Yet the first supposed expert that the reporter talked to was a lawyer for a union. That means that the reporter talked to people with experience in the field from both sides of the bargaining table for their opinions, meaning they were very much trying to be fair. It would appear that 5 degrees either fails to comprehend that or more likely, based on his response, that5 he is the one that is unfair and biased.....and that you are being intentionally misled, again.

Good thing you have Pelmet to set things straight .

I am ready to return to the subject of the thread.

Don’t time to research but, I seem to recall final offer binding arbitration not going so well for AC pilots and binding arbitration awarding Swoop 30 fins to WJ. I can’t ever recall a time when arbitration was fair towards the employee group when specifically dealing with airlines.
Don’t have to look to far back to see, the AC FAs got the company’s wage proposal with one exception, a specific year on the scale got an additional 1% or something to that effect.
Then went on strike, were threaback to work with jail time and the arbitration gets them almost exactly what the company proposed!

[Bede]

Don’t time to research but, I seem to recall final offer binding arbitration not going so well for AC pilots and binding arbitration awarding Swoop 30 fins to WJ. I can’t ever recall a time when arbitration was fair towards the employee group when specifically dealing with airlines.
Don’t have to look to far back to see, the AC FAs got the company’s wage proposal with one exception, a specific year on the scale got an additional 1% or something to that effect.
Then went on strike, were threaback to work with jail time and the arbitration gets them almost exactly what the company proposed!

Your facts are all correct.

I can’t ever recall a time when arbitration was fair towards the employee group when specifically dealing with airlines.

To play devil's advocate: let's be honest, we're all have biases. And the biases always favour our own interests. Perhaps in the examples that you cited, we, as employee's, had expectations that were inconsistent with what a neutral third party felt was appropriate.

(I should also mention that I've seen many arbitrations go in favour of the employee groups. WRT to the Swoop tails- that was a relatively minor loss, but WJ ALPA secured a single employer with the Swoop pilots.)

[pelmet]

Don’t time to research but, I seem to recall final offer binding arbitration not going so well for AC pilots and binding arbitration awarding Swoop 30 fins to WJ. I can’t ever recall a time when arbitration was fair towards the employee group when specifically dealing with airlines.
Don’t have to look to far back to see, the AC FAs got the company’s wage proposal with one exception, a specific year on the scale got an additional 1% or something to that effect.
Then went on strike, were threaback to work with jail time and the arbitration gets them almost exactly what the company proposed!

Your facts are all correct.

I can’t ever recall a time when arbitration was fair towards the employee group when specifically dealing with airlines.

To play devil's advocate: let's be honest, we're all have biases. And the biases always favour our own interests. Perhaps in the examples that you cited, we, as employee's, had expectations that were inconsistent with what a neutral third party felt was appropriate.

(I should also mention that I've seen many arbitrations go in favour of the employee groups. WRT to the Swoop tails- that was a relatively minor loss, but WJ ALPA secured a single employer with the Swoop pilots.)

Thanks guys. It is nice to finally see some intelligent posts.

I’m sure no procedure is perfect. I suspect that those opposed to binding arbitration tend to be those on both the employee side and management side with unreasonable expectations.

Addition to an earlier post about statements I made earlier and whether it was valid.....

I said "Do they vote liberal or NDP because it is felt at the time that they will be more favourable to union action? Yes.

Are they surprised when they still get ordered back to work anyways by the party they voted for? Yes."

There were plenty of posters on the AC forum denigrating the conservatives for years because they were forced back to work(I believe the minister's name was Lisa Raitt). They went on and on about her. So why not vote for the liberals multiple times and all their destructive policies that have accompanied those votes. And guess what.....the liberals quashed their strike too. So their destructive policy vote(gosh hospital waits are so long these days, food and housing is so expensive, and crime is so much higher these days than 11 years ago) got them nothing in return in terms of strike capability.

[safetyfirst123]

Don’t time to research but, I seem to recall final offer binding arbitration not going so well for AC pilots and binding arbitration awarding Swoop 30 fins to WJ. I can’t ever recall a time when arbitration was fair towards the employee group when specifically dealing with airlines.
Don’t have to look to far back to see, the AC FAs got the company’s wage proposal with one exception, a specific year on the scale got an additional 1% or something to that effect.
Then went on strike, were threaback to work with jail time and the arbitration gets them almost exactly what the company proposed!

Your facts are all correct.

I can’t ever recall a time when arbitration was fair towards the employee group when specifically dealing with airlines.

To play devil's advocate: let's be honest, we're all have biases. And the biases always favour our own interests. Perhaps in the examples that you cited, we, as employee's, had expectations that were inconsistent with what a neutral third party felt was appropriate.

(I should also mention that I've seen many arbitrations go in favour of the employee groups. WRT to the Swoop tails- that was a relatively minor loss, but WJ ALPA secured a single employer with the Swoop pilots.)

Thanks guys. It is nice to finally see some intelligent posts.

I’m sure no procedure is perfect. I suspect that those opposed to binding arbitration tend to be those on both the employee side and management side with unreasonable expectations.

Addition to an earlier post about statements I made earlier and whether it was valid.....

I said "Do they vote liberal or NDP because it is felt at the time that they will be more favourable to union action? Yes.

Are they surprised when they still get ordered back to work anyways by the party they voted for? Yes."

There were plenty of posters on the AC forum denigrating the conservatives for years because they were forced back to work(I believe the minister's name was Lisa Raitt). They went on and on about her. So why not vote for the liberals multiple times and all their destructive policies that have accompanied those votes. And guess what.....the liberals quashed their strike too. So their destructive policy vote(gosh hospital waits are so long these days, food and housing is so expensive, and crime is so much higher these days than 11 years ago) got them nothing in return in terms of strike capability.

Because the Harper government showed a propensity to undermine labour unions. You are right, the Trudeau government provided mere lip service to unions, but it was under Harper that Air Canada pilots were forced into their horrible ten year contract which dragged our entire pilot pay in Canada down. Until then, we were not that far behind American pilot pay, and since then the Americans have leapfrogged us in Canada. The disappointment for how Harper held us back is not unfounded.

[pelmet]

Your facts are all correct.


To play devil's advocate: let's be honest, we're all have biases. And the biases always favour our own interests. Perhaps in the examples that you cited, we, as employee's, had expectations that were inconsistent with what a neutral third party felt was appropriate.

(I should also mention that I've seen many arbitrations go in favour of the employee groups. WRT to the Swoop tails- that was a relatively minor loss, but WJ ALPA secured a single employer with the Swoop pilots.)

Thanks guys. It is nice to finally see some intelligent posts.

I’m sure no procedure is perfect. I suspect that those opposed to binding arbitration tend to be those on both the employee side and management side with unreasonable expectations.

Addition to an earlier post about statements I made earlier and whether it was valid.....

I said "Do they vote liberal or NDP because it is felt at the time that they will be more favourable to union action? Yes.

Are they surprised when they still get ordered back to work anyways by the party they voted for? Yes."

There were plenty of posters on the AC forum denigrating the conservatives for years because they were forced back to work(I believe the minister's name was Lisa Raitt). They went on and on about her. So why not vote for the liberals multiple times and all their destructive policies that have accompanied those votes. And guess what.....the liberals quashed their strike too. So their destructive policy vote(gosh hospital waits are so long these days, food and housing is so expensive, and crime is so much higher these days than 11 years ago) got them nothing in return in terms of strike capability.

Because the Harper government showed a propensity to undermine labour unions. You are right, the Trudeau government provided mere lip service to unions, but it was under Harper that Air Canada pilots were forced into their horrible ten year contract which dragged our entire pilot pay in Canada down. Until then, we were not that far behind American pilot pay, and since then the Americans have leapfrogged us in Canada. The disappointment for how Harper held us back is not unfounded.

Not sure about the details of how the ten year contract came to be. I suspect that people had to vote for it and union leaders had to agree to it.

However, detailed information from you about the specifics would be welcome.

Let's see if we actually get that factual information from SafetyFirst123 or if it turns out to be exaggeration. All I like is harsh truth facts.

[propfeather]

Thanks guys. It is nice to finally see some intelligent posts.

I’m sure no procedure is perfect. I suspect that those opposed to binding arbitration tend to be those on both the employee side and management side with unreasonable expectations.

Addition to an earlier post about statements I made earlier and whether it was valid.....

I said "Do they vote liberal or NDP because it is felt at the time that they will be more favourable to union action? Yes.

Are they surprised when they still get ordered back to work anyways by the party they voted for? Yes."

There were plenty of posters on the AC forum denigrating the conservatives for years because they were forced back to work(I believe the minister's name was Lisa Raitt). They went on and on about her. So why not vote for the liberals multiple times and all their destructive policies that have accompanied those votes. And guess what.....the liberals quashed their strike too. So their destructive policy vote(gosh hospital waits are so long these days, food and housing is so expensive, and crime is so much higher these days than 11 years ago) got them nothing in return in terms of strike capability.

Because the Harper government showed a propensity to undermine labour unions. You are right, the Trudeau government provided mere lip service to unions, but it was under Harper that Air Canada pilots were forced into their horrible ten year contract which dragged our entire pilot pay in Canada down. Until then, we were not that far behind American pilot pay, and since then the Americans have leapfrogged us in Canada. The disappointment for how Harper held us back is not unfounded.

Not sure about the details of how the ten year contract came to be. I suspect that people had to vote for it and union leaders had to agree to it.

However, detailed information from you about the specifics would be welcome.

Let's see if we actually get that factual information from SafetyFirst123 or if it turns out to be exaggeration. All I like is harsh truth facts.

VANCOUVER (Reuters) - A Canadian government-appointed arbitrator chose to enforce Air Canada's final offer over one proposed by the union representing its 3,000 pilots, ending a long and bitter contract dispute but angering the pilots.
Air Canada , Canada's biggest airline, said on Monday the agreement preserved compensation and benefits for its pilots near the top of industry levels and helped to ensure the sustainability of the company's defined benefit pension fund.
"At the same time, it provides the company with the necessary flexibility to compete effectively in the current industry environment," Air Canada Chief Executive Calin Rovinescu said in a statement.
The Air Canada Pilots Association , which has been in on-off talks with Air Canada for more than a year, was swift to condemn the decision by arbitrator Douglas Stanley and suggested that it may affect the safety of the airline as pilots are disillusioned and distracted.
"Air Canada pilots are angry at the way they have been treated by the government and their employer," ACPA said in a statement.
"The safety and professionalism that passengers expect from Air Canada pilots have been put at risk by a corporate culture that refuses to recognize or value our contributions," it said.
A key issue in the talks was money-losing Air Canada's desire to launch a separate discount airline, which it says is crucial to future profitability. Pilots strongly oppose the plan, fearing it puts their job security and benefits at risk.
Pilots rejected a tentative labor agreement reached by its union with the carrier in May 2011, largely because it proposed the creation of a low-cost airline subsidiary.
ACPA president Paul Strachan said the new contract did make mention of a low-cost operation, but did not give further details. He said the agreement also included terms increasing the number of flight hours per month for pilots from a maximum of 90 hours to 118 hours.
"We're taking a step decades back in time in terms of allowable flight time here," he said in an interview.
Air Canada said it would not comment further on details of the new five-year agreement, which will run until April 1, 2016, while it was discussing it with its employees.
The previous agreement expired on March 31, 2011.
"With the final offer selection announced, I expect that more details will begin to emerge from Air Canada regarding its previously announced intention to start a low-cost carrier operation," said Robert Kokonis, managing director of AirTrav Inc, an airline consulting company.
BINDING ARBITRATION
Canadian Labour Minister Lisa Raitt appointed Stanley in May after the Canadian government halted in March a planned work stoppage at Air Canada sparked by the airline's decision to lock out its pilots after negotiations failed to reach a deal.
The government, arguing that a shut down of Air Canada would harm Canada's fragile economic recovery, passed legislation to prevent Air Canada's pilots, as well as its mechanics and baggage handlers, from striking and the airline from locking them out.
That legislation sent contract disputes for the two unions to binding arbitration.
"I respect the decision made by Mr. Stanley and am glad that the dispute between Air Canada and the ACPA has reached a conclusion that will ensure stability for the economy, and Canadians," Raitt said in a statement.
Despite the government intervention, Air Canada's operations were hurt by wildcat strikes involving members of both unions in March and April. The short-lived strikes caused a string of flight cancellations across the country.
Both unions have challenged the government law as unconstitutional.
The arbitrator's decision on the pilots' contract follows a separate ruling June 17, in which an arbitrator chose to enforce Air Canada's final offer, rather than a union-proposed offer, for 8,600 mechanics, baggage handlers and cargo agents.
ACPA said federally imposed arbitration could not bring about the "energized and motivated professional pilot group Air Canada needs to succeed."
"Instead, arbitration has imposed work rules that will cost many pilots their jobs, demoralize the rest and kick other important issues years down the road, where they will fester and undermine any effort to achieve positive culture change at our airline," ACPA president Paul Strachan and chairman Jean-Marc Belanger said in a statement.

[altiplano]

Some incorrect history above.

The Harper Conservative government did not force the 10 year deal on AC Pilots. The AC Pilots and their corrupt ACPA Leadership did that to themselves in 2014. But the Harper government did set the AC Pilots up on that path.

In 2011 corrupt and complicit ACPA Leadership did an end run on the membership and governance and announced a highly concessionary deal dubbed TA1. B-scale, loss of pension, loss of pay, and more. The membership voted it down and recalled the MEC, but the corporation wasn't prepared to give the Association time to regroup, pressure was on.

Around the same time the IAMAW went on strike, the company response was to lock both the IAMAW and the Pilots out. The government acted by passing the Protecting Air Services Act which cancelled the lockout/strike and assigned binding Final Offer Selection (FOS) arbitration, where both sides make proposals and the arbitrator picks one. The legislation specified that the arbitrator had to choose the submission that was the best for the company's stability and profitability. FOS was previously unheard of in this type of situation as was an enormous overreach, not interest arbitration or arbitrator appointed concessions, but all or nothing.

FOS decision dropped in 2012 and the Pilots got smoked. The company was able to write it's own contract and took everything it wanted and a little more from the TA1 deal.

After the dust settled with FOS, the previous rats either went to AC management or worked their way back into the MEC, the Negotiating Committee, and other key ACPA positions. In 2014, under the guise of cleaning up some language and 2 years ahead of FOS contract expiry - and during Air Canada's existential pension finding crisis - the NC freely negotiated and dropped the 10 year deal on AC Pilots lap...For a 10K signing bonus, "B" passes, and a pat on the head promise from Air Canada for a new relationship, Pilots voted in at about 80% what was the most damaging contract in their history. At that time they were actually paid more than US Legacy airlines, but it was still a bankruptcy era rate. Was it Stockholm syndrome?

The next year Air Canada's profits soared to record levels. 2016 saw enormous pay gains in the US where 1st year MD80 CAs now made more than 12 year AC 777 CAs. But the apathy and ignorance was high, particularly from the most senior AC crowd.

10 years later the catch up contract is still behind, the gains were very large, but there is still so much more needed.

Anyway... As much as the Conservative government hurt my career with FOS, it was ultimately due to company overreach and arrogance and horrible ACPA complicity and incompetence which has hurt my career even more. 11 years of Liberal government has hurt my finances and lifestyle even more than all that...

I'd take the outcome another round of Lisa Ratt FOS with competent representation behind me this time over another 10 years of Trudeau/Carney Liberals.

[safetyfirst123]

Thanks guys. It is nice to finally see some intelligent posts.

I’m sure no procedure is perfect. I suspect that those opposed to binding arbitration tend to be those on both the employee side and management side with unreasonable expectations.

Addition to an earlier post about statements I made earlier and whether it was valid.....

I said "Do they vote liberal or NDP because it is felt at the time that they will be more favourable to union action? Yes.

Are they surprised when they still get ordered back to work anyways by the party they voted for? Yes."

There were plenty of posters on the AC forum denigrating the conservatives for years because they were forced back to work(I believe the minister's name was Lisa Raitt). They went on and on about her. So why not vote for the liberals multiple times and all their destructive policies that have accompanied those votes. And guess what.....the liberals quashed their strike too. So their destructive policy vote(gosh hospital waits are so long these days, food and housing is so expensive, and crime is so much higher these days than 11 years ago) got them nothing in return in terms of strike capability.

Because the Harper government showed a propensity to undermine labour unions. You are right, the Trudeau government provided mere lip service to unions, but it was under Harper that Air Canada pilots were forced into their horrible ten year contract which dragged our entire pilot pay in Canada down. Until then, we were not that far behind American pilot pay, and since then the Americans have leapfrogged us in Canada. The disappointment for how Harper held us back is not unfounded.

Not sure about the details of how the ten year contract came to be. I suspect that people had to vote for it and union leaders had to agree to it.

However, detailed information from you about the specifics would be welcome.

Let's see if we actually get that factual information from SafetyFirst123 or if it turns out to be exaggeration. All I like is harsh truth facts.

You got a couple of good responses above, but have you looked at pay scales? Have you seen how far behind we've gone in that time period compared to American pilots? If you consider these exaggerations you must love falling far behind in the last 15 years.